[Cite as State v. Feidler, 2024-Ohio-2040.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

JEREMY M. FEIDLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2023-T-0094

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00705

O P I N I O N

Decided: May 28, 2024

Judgment: Affirmed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 

44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Michael A. Partlow, P.O. Box 1562, Stow, OH 44224 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jeremy Feidler (“appellant”), appeals from the 

judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant to

consecutive prison terms on his convictions of vandalism and aggravated menacing. For 

the following reasons, we affirm. 

{¶2} On October 12, 2022, the Trumbull County Grand Jury returned a threecount indictment charging appellant with vandalism, a fourth-degree felony in violation of 
2

Case No. 2023-T-0094

R.C. 2909.05(B)(2) and (E) (“Count 1”), and two counts of aggravated menacing, fifthdegree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) and (B) (“Counts 2 and 3”).1

{¶3} Appellant entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment on October 25, 2022. 

No bond was set. 

{¶4} On November 2, 2022, appellant filed a motion for leave to file plea of not 

guilty by reason of insanity. A competency evaluation was ordered on January 19, 2023. 

A competency hearing was held on March 2, 2023. The State and appellant stipulated to 

the competency report submitted by the Forensic Psychiatric Center of Northeast Ohio, 

Inc. On March 7, 2023, the trial court concluded that appellant was incapable of 

understanding the nature and objectives of the proceedings or assisting in his own 

defense due to his mental condition at the time, but there was a substantial probability 

that appellant would become capable within six months with a course of treatment. 

Appellant was committed to Heartland Behavioral Healthcare for treatment. 

{¶5} On June 29, 2023, a second competency hearing was held. The parties 

stipulated to the report filed by Heartland Behavioral Healthcare. The trial court found 

appellant to be competent to stand trial. 

{¶6} On September 14, 2023, appellant appeared with counsel, waived his 

rights, and entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 as charged in the indictment. The 

remaining charge was dismissed. A presentence investigation (“PSI”) was ordered. 

{¶7} A sentencing hearing was held on October 19, 2023. The trial court 

sentenced appellant to a prison term of eighteen months on Count 1 and a prison term of 

1. This case was bound over from the Warren Municipal Court on September 16, 2022, in Case No. 2022

CRA 001617. 
3

Case No. 2023-T-0094

twelve months on Count 2. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to 

each other for an aggregate prison term of 30 months. 

{¶8} Appellant timely appeals and raises a single assignment of error: “[t]he trial 

court erred by sentencing appellant to two terms of imprisonment, to be served 

consecutively with one another, as the record does not support such a sentence.” We 

disagree. 

{¶9} “R.C. 2953.08(G) governs our review of felony sentences, and provides, in 

relevant part, that after an appellate court’s review of the record, it ‘may increase, reduce, 

or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the 

sentence and remand * * * if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the sentence is * 

* * contrary to law.’” State v. Lamb, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022-P-0084, 2023-Ohio-2834, 

¶ 9, citing State v. Meeks, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0060, 2023-Ohio-988, ¶ 11. 

See State v. Gwynne, 173 Ohio St.3d 525, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109. “‘[A] 

sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory range for the offense 

or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set 

forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.’” Id., at ¶ 10,

quoting State v. Shannon, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2020-T-0020, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11.

{¶10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that while “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) 

permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence if it clearly and convincingly

finds that ‘the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under’ certain 

specified statutory provisions. But R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutory 

provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Only R.C. 2929.13(B) and (D), 

2929.14(B)(2)(e) and (C)(4), and 2929.20(I) are specified.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 
4

Case No. 2023-T-0094

242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 28. “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) therefore does not 

provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view 

that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Id. at 

¶ 39. See also State v. Reed, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0082, 2023-Ohio-1324, ¶ 

13.

{¶11} Appellant asserts that the “standard for felony sentencing essentially 

amounts to no review at all, assuming a trial court stays within whatever sentencing range 

is established by statute.” This Court has previously viewed such claim “as a challenge 

to the constitutionality of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) or Ohio's high court ruling in Jones.” State 

v. Reed, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0082, 2023-Ohio-1324, ¶ 13. We have 

consistently rejected this claim and agreed with Justice Fischer's concurring opinion in 

Jones. State v. Harvey, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2023-T-0046, 2024-Ohio-702, ¶ 9.

{¶12} Appellant's argument essentially asks this Court to review whether the 

record supported the trial court's decision to impose a prison term rather than a 

community control sanction, which this Court is not permitted to do. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 

242, at ¶ 39. However, the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing is reviewable 

under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

{¶13} There is a statutory presumption in favor of concurrent sentences. R.C. 

2929.41(A). However, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:

If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for 

convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the 

offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court 

finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the 

public from future crime or to punish the offender and that 

consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the 

seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the 
5

Case No. 2023-T-0094

offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of 

the following:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple 

offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, 

was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section

2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was 

under post-release control for a prior offense.

(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as 

part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused 

by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so 

great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the 

offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct 

adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.

(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates 

that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the 

public from future crime by the offender.

{¶14} “In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is 

required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing 

and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to state 

reasons to support its findings.” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 

16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37. Additionally, “as long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial 

court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains 

evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” Id. at ¶ 29. 

“In other words, ‘if the court has properly made the required findings in order to impose 

consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we “clearly and 

convincingly” find “[t]hat the record does not support the court's findings[.]”’” State v. 

Haynes, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2022-L-009, 2022-Ohio-4464, ¶ 48, quoting State v. Venes, 

2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). See

State v. Passalacqua, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2023-L-013, 2023-Ohio-3525, ¶ 28.
6

Case No. 2023-T-0094

{¶15} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated in relevant part:

[The] Court has considered the overring principles and 

purposes of felony sentencing, further has considered all 

relevant seriousness and recidivism factors. The Court finds 

the sentence shall be proportional to the Defendant’s conduct 

as well as consistent with similarly situated offenders.

* * *

Pursuant to Revised Code Section 2929.14, Court finds it is 

necessary to protect the public from future crime by the 

defendant, that he has serious criminal history, that due to the 

conduct of the defendant a single prison term would not 

adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct of the 

defendant and its necessary to protect the public to have 

consecutive sentences.

{¶16} These findings were incorporated in the sentencing entry which provides 

in relevant part: “[t]he Court finds that consecutive service is necessary to protect the 

public from future crime and to punish the Defendant, and that consecutive sentences are 

not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and to the danger the 

Defendant poses to the public. Further, the Court finds that the Defendant’s history of 

criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the 

public from future crime by the offender.” 

{¶17} The trial court’s findings are supported by the record. Therefore, the trial 

court’s imposition of consecutive sentences complies with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the 

sentences are not otherwise contrary to law. As such, appellant’s sole assignment of error 

is without merit. 

{¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. 
7

Case No. 2023-T-0094

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.